About your Search

20130201
20130228
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5
and leadership. one, do you support or oppose chuck hagel as secretary of defense? two, with your evaluation of thomas ricks criticism of american general since world war ii except for you a general petraeus? [laughter] >> , see brilliant as his wife is. i just finished this book. it's painful to read about generous he criticized because it's correct. you see it and go i'm guilty of that. and we had shortcomings of not being strategically enough minded. you focus on your job, tactical part of the nation and not think in a big strategic problem you're trying to solve. the criticism is not hiring enough people. we don't fired generals. that may or may not be a good criticism. it's certainly worth paying attention to, but it's a useful thing to throw out there. so what was the first one? chuck hagel. if chuck hagel will take the job right now, god bless him. whoever secretary of defense, they are going to go through this constricting budget, implement things like females in combat, which i agree with, but in lamenting will be hard. something will come to head with iran in the next four years ma
-- hagel, some of the things he wants to do is to turn this back over to the military so that at least it's not embroiled in secrecy at the very beginning. we don't know anything about it. so at least it will be out many the open a bit which i think is a good thing. >> what was the level, if any, of petraeus in the writing of the book, and what is his reaction after being published? >> well, you know, i interviewed about 110 people for this book including petraeus. one thing about petraeus, he has always been very solicitous of reporters, including me, i have to admit. now, he has two motives, and everybody knows it. one is he kind of likes hanging around with reporters. but second, he sees it as what the military would call information operations or, as the french less euphemistically call it, propaganda. in other words, this is a way of getting the word out. you, and, you know, it works. the thing about petraeus i remember, i mean, i can tell you as a reporter there were four-star generals in the years before petraeus, you know, you'd go meet with them, and you'd come away thinking, god
was devoted to becoming an astronaut to the position of secretary of state. chuck hagel is a wonderful nomination. the criticism of him is silly, i believe. people are throwing that around. it is embarrassing. embarrassing to see accusations like that. if you go back to eric miller's book, he talked about the israeli lobby on many occasions. so i don't quite know what the debate is all about. i think that it will disorders go away because it doesn't make a lot of sense. the trees to care about himself, giving adultery a very bad name. but what was obama thinking. but what was obama thinking with intelligence issues that we would have to grapple with. i could not think of a better scenario than having david petraeus at the cia. that's not what he had in mind in 1947. he did not want to put in the hands of military policymakers. what the cia was created for was to challenge military intelligence. the cia has done its job correctly and that is what they have done on things such as arms control or vietnam, for that matter. what needs to be done, and let me just check the time to, we don't
your experience in research, what do you think of the reaction against chuck hagel's being secretary of defense, a man whose clearly reluctant to send soldiers into harm's way having been there himself. >> the question was about the former senator chuck hagel, a man with two purple hearts, shrapnel in his test, and all the controversy over him. without weighing in on him per se. i like the idea of people who served in uniform having a say in policy decisions in which men in uniform and women in uniform are sent into harm's way, as a general thought. i don't have a position on whether he should be secretary of defense. i do think it's interesting, and the last three or four weeks i've wished my show was up and running so we could talk about this at some length, but i think it's interesting, john kerry, chuck hagel, two men with, i think, five purple hearts between them, and both of them, although, they votedded for iraq and afghanistan, can't say they are completely doves, although, maybe john kerry didn't vote for iraq. i can't keep it straight, but in any case, what it does, and we
on american history tv on c-span3. >> and now former senator chuck hagel expresses his thoughts on the war in iraq and says that more should have been done leading up to the war to determine whether it was the right action to take. he also examines america's position in the world and its future from an economic and environmental perspective. this is just over an hour. >> honored to have an opportunity to be with you and in this house and your guests and those who believe in a better world and how to make a better world because as i look around this room, i see so many people who have devoted their careers and their lives to making a better world. and to all of you, thank you. we, all of us in the global community, appreciate it. and most of you are cometting to make those -- continuing to make those same kinds of contributions. nice to see you again, thank you very much, and to some of our current ambassadors who
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)